[MD] The MOQ difference

[david buchanan]

Gents:

There is a difference "between the written (or spoken) word and its representation" in one's head but both of these are considered to part of language. In semiotics, the former is called a "sign" and the latter is the "signified".  Often there is also a "referent", which is the actual "thing" being referred to - as opposed to the word or the concept that refers to it. Language includes all three parts and so the difference between words and concepts is a distinction within the language process, within the overall system. So I don't think there is any meaningful distinction between thought and language. 

Also, I'm pretty sure the MOQ is at odds with the brain-mind identity theory. This is not to say that we can think without brains. Reductionism is the problem and we can avoid it by noticing that we inherit a whole system of thought and language from the culture and this system has evolved as a collective effort. It's not a product of the brain so much as a product of accumulated experience. In terms of the MOQ's levels of static quality, we'd say that thought and language are social and intellectual rather than biological or physical. 

Lil' Wiki on the topic, under the heading "some important semioticians":
"Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), the founder of the philosophical doctrine known as pragmatism (which he later renamed "pragmaticism" to distinguish it from the pragmatism developed by others like William James), preferred the terms "semiotic" and "semeiotic." He defined semiosis as "...action, or influence, which is, or involves, a cooperation of three subjects, such as a sign, its object, and its interpretant, this tri-relative influence not being in any way resolvable into actions between pairs." ("Pragmatism", Essential Peirce 2: 411; written 1907). His notion of semiosis evolved throughout his career, beginning with the triadic relation just described, and ending with a system consisting of 59,049 (= 310, or 3 to the 10th power) possible elements and relations. One reason for this high number is that he allowed each interpretant to act as a sign, thereby creating a new signifying relation. Peirce was also a notable logician, and he considered semiotics and logic as facets of a wider theory. For a summary of Peirce's contributions to semiotics, see Liszka (1996).Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), the "father" of modern linguistics, proposed a dualistic notion of signs, relating the signifier as the form of the word or phrase uttered, to the signified as the mental concept. It is important to note that, according to Saussure, the sign is completely arbitrary, i.e. there was no necessary connection between the sign and its meaning. This sets him apart from previous philosophers such as Plato or the Scholastics, who thought that there must be some connection between a signifier and the object it signifies. In his Course in General Linguistics, Saussure himself credits the American linguist William Dwight Whitney (1827–1894) with insisting on the arbitrary nature of the sign. Saussure's insistence on the arbitrariness of the sign has also influenced later philosophers and theorists such as Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, and Jean Baudrillard. Ferdinand de Saussure coined the term semiologie while teaching his landmark "Course on General Linguistics" at the University of Geneva from 1906–11. Saussure posited that no word is inherently meaningful. Rather a word is only a "signifier," i.e. the representation of something, and it must be combined in the brain with the "signified," or the thing itself, in order to form a meaning-imbued "sign." Saussure believed that dismantling signs was a real science, for in doing so we come to an empirical understanding of how humans synthesize physical stimuli into words and other abstract concepts."




> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:05:26 -0700
> From: ununoctiums at gmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The MOQ difference
> 
> Fair enough Craig, we have different delimitations of the words being used.
>  But, I think I get what you mean.  Concepts as a inner function of the
> brain which is more than just for communication.  The word dog may be
> composed of 12-13 interconnected neurons in my brain which fire in such a
> way as to make dog appear in my mind's eye.  (of course I am just making
> that neuron stuff up, just an analogy).
> 
> I was differentiating between the written word and its representation in my
> head.  In this way I see language as a trigger.  But as you say, concept
> could be used to represent that inner sense.  If this is what you mean, then
> certainly concepts do result in language, and our living in a culture could
> arise as concepts.  It may be more of a two way street however.  Do levels
> interact in a dynamic way?  If so, how can we measure such interaction and
> allow prediction?  (Serious question from the uninitiated).
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:07 AM, <craigerb at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > [Craig, previously]
> >
> >
> > > "concepts are provided by our language" &
> > > "language is provided by our culture"
> >
> >
> > .
> > [Mark]
> > > If a concept is a string of words that has meaning,
> > > where does that meaning come from?
> >
> > .
> > I would say "a string of words that has meaning" is a sentence,
> > not a concept.
> > .
> > [Mark]
> > > Certainly the words are neutral, just sounds.
> >
> > .
> > Not certain. Words are not just sounds, but have meaning.
> >
> >
> > .
> > [Mark]
> > > In my opinion, a concept must trigger an
> > > inner reaction that is independent of the words.
> >
> > .
> > The inner reaction triggered by a concept (for instance, "dog")
> > is NOT independent of the inner reaction tiggered by the word "dog",
> > but is IDENTICAL.
> > Craig
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html